On 2002-01-30 11:48, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:
> At 09:12 AM 1/30/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>> I find this completely non sequitur.
>>>
>>> If any show stopper can be removed by introduction of a different show
>>> stopper, that doesn't mean there are no show stoppers.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow you there. Both Dan and Sergey in their "can't
>> live with S" postings focused primarily on the fact that because TDL
>> presumed untidy literal nodes, it was fundamentally broken. I.e.
>
> OK, let's back up. The original show stopper in this case was, in my view,
> the lack of self-entailment of a document, which was in turn a consequence
> of the treatment of untidy literal nodes.
>
> Jeremy offered a proposal that overcame the self-entailment problem, but
> which required a fundamental change to the handling of RDF (relative to at
> least DanC's and my understanding).
My suggestion was that there only was an entailment problem if you
subscribed to the view that literals are globally unique in meaning.
Since it was shown that such a view is not correct, does then the
entailment problem go away?
I was not referring to Jeremy's revised proposal -- which really is
not another proposal, but a way to view/implement TDL which makes
the tidy/untidy issue a bit more explicit.
> The non sequitur here is:
>
> Proposal A is broken for reason of problem B.
>
> Proposal C fixes problem B
>
> => Proposal A+C is not broken.
This was not what I was saying.
I was saying
Proposal A (TDL) is broken for reason of problem B ("Duh!").
There is no problem B.
Proposal A is not broken.
> Roughly, you have to consider the wider picture, you can't just pick off
> problems in isolation.
Never did. You seem to have misunderstood me.
Is the above now clearer?
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com